IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4483 of 2008()
1. POOVATHI SULAIMAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/11/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 4483 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner, along with the co-accused, faces indictment
in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section
353 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and Section 4 r/w. 21 of the M.M.D.R. Act.
Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report
submitted by the police.
2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with a prayer
that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to bring to
premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner.
3. What is the ground? The learned counsel for the
petitioner advances various grounds before this Court. First of
all it is contended that the F.I.R. has been registered on the basis
of an instruction given to the S.I. of police by the Revenue
Divisional Officer. The counsel sets up an argument that it is not
really an F.I. statement alleging commission of cognizable
Crl.M.C.No. 4483 of 2008
2
offences. It is only a direction of a superior officer to the S.I. That
being the case, a proper investigation has not been conducted and the
police officer was obliged to register the F.I.R., it is contended. I do
not find any merit in this contention raised. A careful perusal of
Annex.5 reveals allegation of commission of offences has been raised
and the R.D.O., Perinthalmanna had only forwarded the same to the
S.I. with request/direction to take appropriate action under law. That
contention cannot persuade me to invoke the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C. now.
4. It is next contended that the F.I. statement is hopelessly
belated. The delay in filing the F.I. statement can certainly be taken
advantage of by the petitioner in the course of trial. I find no reason
how that can be reckoned as a sufficient or just reason to invoke the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The effect
and consequence of the delay in lodging the F.I. statement can, of
course, be raised and considered in the course of trial.
5. The counsel finally contends that as a matter of fact Annex.I
has been filed before the District Collector long prior to the lodging of
the F.I.R. against them. A proper investigation into the contents of
Crl.M.C.No. 4483 of 2008
3
Annex.I has not been conducted by the Investigating Officer, it is
lamented. The petitioner had not approached the learned Magistrate
for any direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the proper conduct
of the investigation. Even now, if he is aggrieved that a proper
investigation has not been conducted, he has the option to approach the
learned Magistrate with a prayer under Section 156(3) and/or 173(8)
Cr.P.C. I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioner, who has not
exhausted that alternative remedy, which is available to him under law,
can be permitted to stake his claim for quashing the proceedings
without and before exhausting such remedy.
6. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I
have not intended to express any opinion on merits about the
acceptability of the contentions raised. I choose only to take the view
that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. do not deserve to be invoked
at this stage.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm
Crl.M.C.No. 4483 of 2008
4